Bonaza decision: Impact on Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal plants?
November 17, 2008
Reprinted in full from Harris News:
Ruling’s effect on Sunflower plans unclear
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — Some opponents of a plan to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas said Friday that a new federal ruling could create a further hurdle for the stalled project.
Critics of the utility’s $3.6 billion expansion plans hailed a decision from an Environmental Protection Agency appeals board that blocked — for now — a federal permit for the Bonanza coal plant in Utah.
In making its ruling on Thursday, the appeals panel said the EPA’s Denver office must explain why it declined to limit carbon dioxide emissions in issuing a permit for the plant, which is on an Indian reservation.
State and national environmentalists said the move seems to signal that CO2 emissions of all new coal plant projects now will be considered when federal or state officials decide whether they should receive permits.
Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for Kansas Sierra Club, said the decision would put Sunflower’s plans for new coal plants on shakier footing.
“It’s our belief that this is just one more reason why Sunflower and its partners should not be moving forward with a multi-billion dollar project with increasing financial and regulatory uncertainty,” Cole said.
However, a spokeswoman for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. couldn’t say Friday whether the ruling would have have any effect on the utility’s Holcomb expansion project.
“We constantly evaluate the political and economic conditions that may affect our project,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said. “Our environmental personnel have not had the opportunity to review the decision regarding the Utah coal plant as to whether or not it will impact us.”
Hertel said the Hays-based, nonprofit utility, made up of six rural electric cooperatives it provides power to, would continue to pursue the project as long as it remained in the best interest of Kansas rate payers.
A spokesman for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado, the largest partner in the expansion project, could not be reached for comment. Tri-State plans to purchase power from one of the $3.6 billion project’s two generators and is paying development fees to Sunflower.
Permits on hold
Sunflower’s construction plans have been on hold since last year, when Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby blocked air-quality permits for the project over concerns about the plants’ CO2 emissions.
Bremby said he couldn’t ignore mounting evidence that the plants would emit 11 million tons of CO2 each year that would contribute to global warming.
But Sunflower and its supporters argue that they followed all existing laws in pursuing the permits and that Bremby overstepped his bounds in blocking them. They point out that there are no existing state or federal limits on the greenhouse gas.
The utility and its partners are pursuing a legal challenge to overturn Bremby’s decision, which could wind up before the Kansas Supreme Court early next year.
Legislative supporters could also make another run at clearing the way for the plants when they reconvene in January, after being thwarted by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes this past spring.
A spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment declined to comment on the EPA appeals board ruling. KDHE spokesman Mike Heideman said the agency couldn’t comment because of Sunflower’s pending legal challenge of the agency’s permitting decision.
But Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign, said he believes that Thursday’s EPA decision decreases the odds that Sunflower’s project will ever receive permits.
Not a blow?
State officials must follow the EPA’s rules in awarding permits, Nilles said. Under the new ruling, he said he doesn’t believe Sunflower could win permit approval until state officials have given the project’s potential CO2 emissions additional consideration.
He said he also believes that the board’s move paves the way for President-elect Barack Obama to immediately limit CO2 emissions through Clean Air Act — without any additional action from Congress.
“It has an immediate and nationwide impact and really lays the groundwork for even more action on global warming on day one of the Obama Administration,” Nilles said.
But an industry group that backs expanded use of coal power counters that environmentalists may be reading way too much into one decision.
Joe Lucas, a spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the ruling only shows how difficult it is to site new electric generators these days. He said that’s because of continued uncertainty about how greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated.
He said that coal plants elsewhere are still receiving permits, including one in Arkansas earlier this month.
“I know there will be people who will try to spin this as a blow against coal that it is not,” Lucas said.
Nancy Jackson, executive director of The Land Institute’s Climate and Energy Project, said the supporters of new coal-fired generation may view the Utah decision as largely irrelevant.
She said, from their point of view, the EPA has again taken a pass on limiting CO2. But opponents see a victory in the decision, one that “presses pause” on all new coal plants, she said.
“We all know carbon dioxide will soon be regulated,” Jackson said. “The Bonanza decision is a significant and decisive step in that direction.”
Significant new Utah coal ruling on coal plant air permit
November 14, 2008
Stories about this are popping up all over the web, but I’ll clip in from just a few. People are still figuring out the full implications of the EPA appeals decision, so there will probably be more articles to follow.
From Grist:
In a major win for environmentalists, the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board handed down a landmark decision on Thursday that essentially puts a freeze on the construction of as many as 100 new coal-fired power plants around the U.S.
It will now be up to the Obama administration to develop rules on carbon dioxide emissions from such plants.
In July 2007, the EPA issued a permit for a proposed Bonanza coal-fired power plant in Utah. Lawyers for the Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, and Environmental Defense filed a request that the permit be overturned because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. The enviros pointed to the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
In its Thursday decision, the appeals board ruled that the Bush administration had failed to offer a good reason for not regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from the proposed Bonanza plant. The board kicked the permit request back to the regional EPA office in Denver, saying it should reconsider whether the best available pollution controls for CO2 should be required, and stressing that it must adequately explain its decision. “[T]his is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding,” the board wrote.
“Essentially what this decision does is it gives the Obama administration a clean slate to decide what our nation’s energy future should be,” said Joanne Spalding, the senior attorney at the Sierra Club who argued the case before the board. “It puts it back in the lap of an Obama EPA to determine how to treat greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and it gives the opportunity to establish policies that will essentially favor clean energy and impose restrictions on fossil fuels that emit lots of greenhouse gases.”
While greens are cheering the decision, at least one industry representative is calling it a win for his team. Rich Alonso, who represents utilities and power-plant developers for the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani and previously served as a senior air attorney with EPA’s enforcement office, points out that the board’s decision doesn’t explicitly require the EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act; it simply remands the decision to the regional office.
“The EAB refused to side with the environmental groups and it found that the existing Clean Air Act does not require CO2 to be regulated,” Alonso said. “A ruling in support of regulation would have turned American industry on its head by forcing inappropriate and inflexible CO2 regulation across the country, instead of allowing Congress to develop a national program to address CO2.”
But Jason Hutt, another attorney representing utilities, sees a definite downside in the decision. “All permits in the pipeline are now stymied,” he told the Associated Press.
No matter what industry is saying, enviros see the ruling as a notable victory, even if only a partial one.
“It’s basically saying let’s stop and think before we build this whole fleet of new coal plants that will be putting massive greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere,” said Spalding.
From the AP, via LJWorld:
Washington, D.C. — The Environmental Protection Agency was blocked Thursday from issuing a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah without addressing global warming. The ruling by an agency appeals panel means the Obama administration probably will determine the fate of other similar plants.
The panel said the EPA’s Denver office failed to adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza plant without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
The matter was sent back to that office, which must better explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said the agency was reviewing the ruling by the appeals panel. He declined to say how many other coal plant permits might be affected.
Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling stops the permitting of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.
“In essence, this is a punt to the Obama administration,” said Jason Hutt, a lawyer who represents a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.
The Sierra Club had appealed the Bonanza permit. David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the group, said the ruling will stop the permitting of any coal burning power plants “while EPA mulls over what to do next.”
The gas is a product of burning fossil fuels and a leading culprit in global warming.
Bookbinder had led the club’s efforts to block the attempt by six electric cooperatives to build a second coal-burning generating unit at the Bonanza facility on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation in Utah, knowing a decision on carbon dioxide could have broad implications.
The co-op group, Deseret Power, had no comment about the EPA developments.
One interpretation of the decision (and I phrase it like that because coming from a family of lawyers, I can tell you that there is often no end in arguing these things, no offense to my loved ones) is that at this juncture in the U.S. regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, state regulators can indeed viably claim the authority to regulate CO2.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Background for live blogging from the KETA meeting (for high school students, really, but adults are allowed to read it)
November 10, 2008
Hmm. Where to start.
At the beginning, I suppose, although when it comes to transmission lines in Kansas and the activities of the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority (KETA), we are smack dab in the middle of an already long story.
The reason I am telling it, in this level of detail, is because if you want wind power to come to Kansas, then you’re going to need transmission lines. No transmission lines, no wind. Pretty simple.
For those of you who need to get up to speed - and I know we now have a lot more younger folks reading the CEP blog, getting information for their class discussions about wind power - here’s the general cast of characters (and I apologize to those I am accidentally leaving out).
- KETA. Since KETA is a legislative authority, the majority of its members are legislators. If you follow energy politics in Kansas, these names will sound familiar - on the House side, the venerable Rep. Carl Holmes, Chairman of the House Energy and Utilities Committee, and ranking Democrat Rep. Annie Keuther (whose fans will remember her in part due to her pointed “pigs and lipstick” observations during last session’s coal debate. In terms of this metaphor, she was far ahead of Pres. Elect Obama). On the Senate side are their counterparts, Chairman and Senator Jay Emler and Senator Janis Lee. KETA’s mission is to foster transmission development in Kansas, and as I understand it, its creation was pretty much the brainchild of Chairman Holmes.
- KCC, the Kansas Corporation Commission. It helps to follow these debates if you keep the KCC Commissioners straight from the KCC staff. Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the — er, Senate. I believe. (Kids, go to kslegislature.org and doublecheck.) Staff is state employees. Commissioners come and go. Staff stays. The KCC has jurisdiction over regulated utilities and certain transmission issues in Kansas. As an administrative agency it’s a quasi-judicial authority that makes decisions based on legal proceedings called dockets. If the KCC can’t figure out an issue, then the parties involved can take it to state court. This all takes a really long time.
- SPP, the Southwest Power Pool. SPP is a Regional Transmission Organization who gets its authority from the federal government. SPP’s job is to be the traffic cop for electrons that flow through our grid, to make sure the electrons get to where they need to go safely, efficiently, and affordably. Their job is about as easy as buying a safe, fuel-efficient car with airbags for under $10,000 (ie, not easy at all). SPP’s job is to plan and approve the building of transmission lines - and to make sure the construction happens in a timely fashion. In some situations, they are the boss of the KCC, but exactly when and how is not yet clear because that particular power has not really been tested yet. It’s like a bright shiny new rifle, but no one has yet taken it out on the firing range. Everyone’s pretty sure the gun works, but do the sights need to be tweaked? Nobody knows.
- ITC Great Plains and Westar/ Prairie Wind. To cut a really long story short, these two companies want to build the same transmission line through southern Kansas, and they are fighting about it. This transmission line will be one of the biggest, most powerful, and most strategically placed lines in the entire United States. If it were an artery, it would be one of the ones that leads directly from your heart. We - Kansas, and our wind - we’re the heart.
Situation: SPP has approved the building of this particular transmission line, and they approved ITC Great Plains to do it. Then Westar/ Prairie Wind decided they wanted to build the line. They got to say that because part of the line would go through transmission territory they already controlled. Drama ensued. Legal briefs were filed. Things were said, and it is all on the Internet - go to the KCC website, click on Dockets, and search for these three docket numbers - 08-ITCE-937-COC, 08-ITCE-936-COC, and 08-ITCE-938-COC.
The KCC gets to sort this mess out. SPP’s job is to make sure the KCC sorts the mess out fast. KCC wants to sort the mess out right (meaning, their decision can stand up to scrutiny in state courts should the warring parties decide to take it there). KETA wants the KCC to sort the mess out fast AND right, and they are pretty much beside themselves that there has already been a year of delay in getting the transmission line underway.
Who is KETA mad at? On one level, everyone and no one. They can’t express a preference for who builds the line, their job is just to get people TO build the line. So they are generally displeased that the two companies are wasting time fighting, they are much less than happy with the KCC’s extended timetable for refereeing the dispute, and they aren’t very happy with SPP, either, because the SPP’s exhaustive planning process is sometimes extended, shall we say.
Basically, KETA is not happy - but they can’t really take it out on anyone directly on this issue in this forum. KETA’s powers are limited. The legislators’ powers, though, outside of KETA, are not so limited. If these four legislators on KETA get irritated enough, they stand a good chance of making something else happen during the legislative session. I don’t know what, but. That could potentially be an interesting wild card. (Not a likely one but I enjoy wild cards so I just mention it.)
Context: Two big things are happening - much bigger things than Kansas - that are putting enormous pressures on all parties involved in the dispute.
First, wind development in our part of the country is exploding. That’s not even a strong enough word. Lots of wind turbines going up, and the power needs to get OUT of the SPP region to buyers in Chicago, cities in the South, etc. - power-hungry cities who don’t have enough clean energy sources of their own. They have too little, we have too much, our region can’t possibly absorb all that wind. This means that transmission line development is going to have to explode, too - and Kansas wind exports are going to be competing with Oklahoma and Texas wind for space on these lines. We don’t exactly have a lot of time to wait around.
Second, though - transmission lines used to be pretty much just a state issue. The wind industry, and the possibility of a national Renewable Energy Standard (where a certain percentage of our energy has to come from clean sources), has made transmission a regional if not federal issue. This means that everyone’s jurisdictions are getting turned on their heads. State regulatory authorities are finding themselves in the position of being an extra barrier to getting regional transmission lines built.
So. Long story. Sorry about that! But hopefully the Live Blogging - Notes from the KETA meeting will now make more sense to those who have just come to the CEP blog 
BTW, you can always write Commissioners and/or legislators to express your opinion on these issues. Your comments will become part of the public record.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Heat Pump, Part I: The prep work
October 7, 2008
Bruce Robinson of Anchor Refrigeration plans the heat pump installation for the home of CEP's Maril Hazlett and her husband, Brian.
Banks are trembling, markets are falling, and soon the sky probably will, too - but as blog readers know, this summer Maril’s AC/ heater unit completely blew out. And despite the moment’s financial uncertainties, this sort of infrastructure investment can’t really wait.
(Sob.)
Oh well.
As part of CEP’s work in energy efficiency, we figured this would be a great time to bring our readers an up close look at the installation of a heat pump, from the financing (or lack thereof) to the installation.
What is a heat pump? A heat pump is one of the most energy-efficient heating and cooling decisions you can make. The technology is generally considered to be a form of geothermal heat, which can be ground source or air source. (Since my husband and I live on a rocky hill where trenching would be horribly expensive, we went with air source.)
According to EnergyStar, an air source heat pump “uses the difference between outdoor air temperatures and indoor air temperatures to cool and heat your home.”
Why a heat pump? This decision will vary by homeowner, but a heat pump was especially a good idea for us because our regular heater ran on propane. We usually just depended on our wood stove, since propane was so expensive.
There are those who would say that when your electric provider is a rural electric cooperative with some of the highest rates in the state, moving to an all-electric heat pump is iffy. I say right back - then you pay for the propane.
Actually, this wasn’t just knee-jerk. The switch-over also penciled out for us. We are going with one of the most efficient heat pumps on the market, which means it is also more expensive. However, we are also pretty conservative electricity users. We also keep our thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. Given these and other factors, this investment should pay off in 5-7 years at the outside, even as electricity price will probably continue to rise.
Also, Maril likes where our electricity comes from. Our co-op is part of KEPCo. Compared to other Kansas rural co-ops and utilities, KEPCo has a much smaller carbon footprint. It gets a large chunk of its electricity from low-carbon emission sources such as nuclear, hydropower, and wind.
Propane is also still right for us, for other types of uses. In the future, if at all financially possible, we’d like to add a propane generator, and possibly a heater for Brian’s woodshop (aka, the garage). When it comes to more limited, targeted uses (versus heating and cooling a 2100 square foot home), we will be more able to afford it.
Getting the Groundwork Set
Rebates from utility. Luckily for us, Leavenworth-Jefferson County Electric Cooperative (LJEC) does offer a rebate for installing heat pumps. The amount you receive depends on the level of efficiency you choose to install. Also, they’re very nice when you call up to talk to them.
Financing. First, we looked into the KEEP program, administered by Kansas Housing Resources Corporation in partnership with Sunflower Bank or other financing interests. This is a low-interest loan plan for Kansas citizens to carry out energy efficiency improvements, and it is available to all Kansans, regardless of income.
Brian, late at night, doing the demo for the ductwork
CEP supports incentives for utilities to pursue all cost-effective electricity savings and avoid unnecessary expenditures on generation and grid additions.
Kansans, like all Americans, face skyrocketing fuel and commodity prices, reliability concerns, and an antiquated grid in need of extensive updates. In the face of all this – and amidst a worsening financial crisis and concerns about pollution in general and climate change in particular – it is time not only to remove perverse incentives but to actively encourage our utilities to sell less rather than ever more energy.
We encourage the KCC to align shareholder and customer interests in reducing use and bills. The NARUC National Energy Efficiency Action Plan states the goal well: “modify policies to align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency,” by “addressing the typical utility throughput incentive and removing other regulatory and management disincentives to energy efficiency.”
Our state’s regulated utilities have the power to influence the pace of energy efficiency improvements both directly and indirectly. If our investor-owned utilities embrace energy efficiency as a business model – which they will do only as their shareholders receive a dependable return – they can not only deliver proven programs but also shape state and federal standards and tax credits as well as their customers’ attitudes toward personal efficiency investments and conservation.
With proper incentives, our largest utilities can lower bills for most Kansans, spurring local economic development and preserving our environment and our future options in the process.
Reprinted in full from the Eagle:
MARK PARKINSON: MOVE PAST FAILED PROPOSAL
In response to the commentary by Earl Watkins, CEO of Sunflower Electric Power Corp. (”Holcomb would help supply base-load power,” Sept. 26 Opinion): Last year Sunflower Electric insisted that we build two large coal plants for Colorado and Texas. In return, Kansas would get 100 percent of the pollution, give up 100 percent of the water and only get 15 percent of the electricity.
Sunflower told us this was necessary to keep electric rates low. Sunflower is wrong. Its ratepayers would have to pay — not only for the health costs associated with coal plants but for the financial costs of future federal carbon regulation.
Sunflower told us that without the coal plant, transmission lines would never be built in Kansas. Sunflower was wrong. For the first time in 30 years, there are five transmission projects in development.
Sunflower told us that without the new transmission, we wouldn’t have new wind farms built in Kansas. But in two short years, we have nearly tripled our wind power in Kansas from 364 megawatts to 1,013 megawatts by the end of 2008.
Sunflower told us that without its coal plant, Kansas wouldn’t have enough base-load power. But according to Sunflower’s own documents, it has enough base-load power to last until the year 2019, at which point it would be short only 176 megawatts.
Sunflower’s argument has been reduced to this: Because we need 176 megawatts of power 10 years from now, we must immediately build 1,400 megawatts for Colorado and Texas.
By Sunflower’s own admission, even if the company built these plants, Kansas will still need power in the future. I think we should take care of Kansas customers and Kansas power needs first.
In the next 10 years, Kansas customers will need about another 600 megawatts of power. That is why Gov. Kathleen Sebelius offered Sunflower a compromise: Let’s build a smaller plant that places Kansas’ energy needs first, while still generating some power for export. Sunflower rejected that proposal.
It’s time for Sunflower Electric to move past the failed proposals of the past and move forward toward a new business model, one that recognizes the changing market in fossil fuels and embraces Kansas — its wind, its customers and its future.
Lt. Gov. MARK PARKINSON
Topeka
Kansas and wind power potential
September 26, 2008
Reprinted in full from Salina Journal/ Harris News:
Kansas aims to cash in on wind power
By CHRIS GREEN
TOPEKA — Renewable energy boosters said Wednesday that this year’s significant expansion of wind energy production in Kansas could be just a starting point.
Speakers at this year’s Kansas Wind & Renewable Energy Conference in Topeka envisioned a future in which wind power becomes a major export for the state.
Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson said that while wind power can help meet Kansas’ own power needs, there’s even more potential for providing electricity to other states.
As a result, Parkinson said that with the right amount of help, wind power could transform into a major economic force in the state.
“I don’t think it’s a matter of if it’s going to happen,” Parkinson said, “but a matter of when it’s going to happen.”
Parkinson compared the situation with wind energy in Kansas right now to being in Oklahoma when oil was discovered or being in Silicon Valley as the technology boom ramped up.
But he and other wind energy experts also said it may take congressional action, including an extension of federal tax breaks for wind energy, to help make new wind projects cheaper than coal-fired power.
Legislation extending the wind energy production tax credit, which helps make wind power more competitive with coal and other traditional power sources, easily passed the Senate on Tuesday. But the $17 billion tax-break bill for renewable energy still must clear the House.
Parkinson said the state’s wind industry also could benefit from a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Such limits could help increase the demand for the state’s wind resources to meet power needs.
Kansas also would be an “enormous winner” if Congress passed national standard requiring utilities to produce a certain amount of their power from renewable sources, he said.
Parkinson said supporters of renewable energy should educate and lobby Congress, including the state’s own delegation, to support such a move.
But experts said the state also needs an expansion of high-voltage electric transmission lines, such as the V-plan that two utilities are competing to build in southwest and south-central Kansas.
In the meantime, wind energy production, some of which already is exported, is undergoing a significant expansion in the state. By the end of the year, the state’s wind farms could be producing 1,013 megawatts of electricity, up from the 364 megawatts being churned out at the beginning of the year.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ administration has trumpeted the fact that Kansas would be the first state to top the 1,000-megawatt mark without writing mandates in state law requiring utilities to use renewable energy.
But estimates suggest the state’s overall wind energy potential isn’t close to being met. Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said the state’s maximum wind potential is 120,000 megawatts, or 12 times bigger than the state’s peak load.
He notes that both wind and solar energy, which western Kansas also has great potential to produce, would seem to be a good fit with the state’s farming culture.
In the right direction?
Some scenarios suggest that Kansas could be capable of producing as much as 8,000 to 10,000 megawatts of wind power in the coming decades, The Wind Coalition of Austin, Texas, said in a news release.
The state could use up to 3,000 megawatts for itself and the rest could be used to help meet a national goal of providing 20 percent of electricity through wind power by 2030, the group said.
“Kansas has a far greater wind resource than it can use, so there is a tremendous opportunity to build out more wind energy to export to other markets,” said Paul Sadler, the group’s executive director.
Touting wind energy as a possible export comes at the some time that Parkinson and other critics have opposed a coal-plant project in southwest Kansas.
More than 80 percent of the electricity from Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s proposed $3.6 billion expansion would have gone to nearby states. The plant expansion was blocked by the Sebelius’ administration.
Critics of the project said the plants would have left the state with all of the project’s pollution but little of the power.
Proponents countered that the plants would be the state’s most efficient and that exporting power would be beneficial to the state by providing jobs and economic development. They also argued wind was too intermittent to be widely depended on as a power source.
But Eckhart said he believed that the benefits of renewable energy production exceed those of coal power because so much money would leave the Kansas to pay for a fuel source being mined outside the state. Growth in the state’s wind industry could put the state in line to gain the wind-industry manufacturing jobs that have eluded it thus far, a manager at a company that designs, manufactures and install turbines said.
Christopher Mone, business development manager at Vestas-American Wind Development, said Kansas is well-position to gain those jobs, which have presently clustered in other states, including Colorado.
Eckhart said that during the past six years, Kansas has shed about 6 percent of its manufacturing work force, but new wind farms could help bring those jobs back by the thousands.
Parkinson said the state’s lack of renewable energy mandates and a perception that Kansas policymakers might not be friendly to wind has initially hindered the state’s efforts to land manufacturers.
But the state is now positioned to begin landing some of those jobs as its production of wind power expands, he said.
“There is really no reason why Kansas shouldn’t be the No. 1 state in the country in terms of renewable energy and we’ll continue to head in that direction,” Parkinson said.
Couldn’t make the KS Wind/ Renewables Conference this week? The KS media has you covered.
September 26, 2008
Here’s a start on the excellent coverage of this week’s ninth annual KCC-sponsored Wind and Renewable Energy Conference. I’m not going to get it all posted this morning, but hopefully soon.
Kansas aims to cash in on wind power (Salina Journal/ Harris News)
NASA scientist warns Kansans about CO2 emissions (Dodge Globe)
Global warming reaches emergency status (Salina Journal)
Some of the coverage also got wrapped up with the fact that KS had NASA scientist and climatologist James Hansen in town the day after the KS Chamber of Commerce heard from global warming skeptic and scientist Roy V. Spencer.
There were definitely varying takes on the contrast between the two speakers. This contrast is also not unconnected to the Kansas coal controversy.
NASA scientist urges action on global warming; His speech at clear odds with sentiment of researcher who says CO2 not to blame (Hutch/ Harris News)
Energy summit sparks debate, Coal plants may be back on table for legislature (TCJournal)
Speaker: CO2 not to blame for global warming (Hutch/ Harris News)
Editorial - Renewable Energy Must be Embraced (TCJournal)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
From KDHE - Statewide meetings to be held with Secretary Bremby
September 19, 2008
From the KDHE press release -
KDHE Seeks Public/Stakeholder Comments During Statewide Listening Tour Meetings
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Roderick L. Bremby and the KDHE Executive Team will hold public listening meetings across the state starting in late September. The meetings will be held:
- Wednesday, September 24, Wichita: KDHE South Central Office, 130 S. Market St., 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
- Thursday, September 25, Salina: KDHE North Central District Office, 2501 Market Place, Suite D, 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
- Wednesday, October 1, Chanute: KDHE Southeast District Office, 1500 W. 7th, 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
- Thursday, October 9, Lawrence: KDHE Northeast District Office, 800 W. 24th St., 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
- Tuesday, October 28, Dodge City: KDHE Southwest District Office, 302 W. McArtor, 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
- Wednesday, October 29, Hays, KDHE Northwest District Office, 2301 E. 13th St., 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
The meetings will be to discuss health and environment related issues and seek comments from business and community partners, customers, area legislators and the public. All the meetings are free and open to the public.
Bremby and the KDHE Executive Team will provide a short agency overview and 2008 legislative recap before opening the floor for questions and comments from the public.
Please call 785-296-0461 to request special accommodations to participate in the meeting.
As the state’s environmental protection and public health agency, KDHE promotes responsible choices to protect the health and environment for all Kansans.
Through education, direct services and the assessment of data and trends, coupled with policy development and enforcement, KDHE will improve health and quality of life. We prevent illness, injuries and foster a safe and sustainable environment for the people of Kansas.
Notice from the Washburn Environmental Law Society - they will host a lecture by Dr. James Hansen at noon on Monday, September 22, 2008. Dr. Hansen will be speaking in room 102, with additional seating and video feed in room 100, at Washburn Law School in Topeka, KS.
Dr. Hansen will of course be in town to speak at the KCC’s 9th Annual Wind and Renewable Energy Conference September 23 and 24 at the Topeka Ramada Inn.
Very excited to see so many friends at that event! Right around the corner.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Gov. Sebelius, Lt. Gov Parkinson praise the Southwest Power Pool
September 18, 2008
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) is a regional transmission operator (RTO), and it oversees the regional electric grid to which Kansas belongs.
No regional transmission (over a certain size) can be built without SPP’s permission. For Kansas to upgrade its grid enough to get more wind power online, we need SPP to do at least a couple of things: (1) allow new lines, and (2) make sure that the costs of those lines do not fall disproportionately on our low population state.
And we like it this way (for the most part), but it does mean that there are fewer of us around to bear the per capita costs of expensive infrastructure improvements, like transmission lines.
Thus Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson are praising SPP to the skies for their decision to pursue a cost allocation method known as postage-stamp recovery. This means that the costs of new big lines will be born throughout the SPP territory, not just in the area of new transmission construction.
Reprinted from the Governor’s news release:
Governor, Lt. Governor applaud the Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
Regional State Committee; urge additional action be taken
An expanded transmission system will help to ensure regional reliability for the future.
Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson, in a recent letter to the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Regional State Committee Chair David King, applauded the Committee for their unanimous decision to treat wind energy on a more comparable basis with conventional generation sources and encouraged further action by year’s end to develop a cost allocation methodology for the regional transmission system.
The new policy will allow for base-funding transmission line upgrades and certain wind energy projects to be selected as Designated Network Resources – a more equitable method of financial aid.
“Supporting policies that will expedite expansion of our transmission infrastructure will benefit Kansas, as well as the entire region,” said Sebelius. “We appreciate the critical role the SPP Regional Committee has played in making a decision that will provide greater assurance of cost recovery for new projects and upgrades. We encourage speedy implementation of this policy.”
In the letter Sebelius and Parkinson encourage the SPP to view transmission’s benefits broadly in order to promote the needed infrastructure and also express support in moving towards “postage stamp” rates for the regional Extra High Voltage (EVH) transmission system. In addition, they emphasized the importance of simplifying cost allocation methodologies to spur the construction of the super regional transmission system.
Existing resources allow for the opportunity for Kansas to export electricity to regions in need and will provide economic development benefits, similar to what is seen in the agriculture industry.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) provides market oversight to the SPP and other regional electric power markets nationwide. The SPP operates the transmission grid in Kansas, Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Arkansas.
Reminder of other recent transmission activity in the state - T. Boone Pickens came through here to talk about the need for an interstate highway for transmission.
Also, Westar Energy and ITC Great Plains are competing to build a 765 kV line between Spearville KS and Wichita KS. ITC Great Plains has already worked it out to build another big line (forget the size, sorry!) between Spearville KS and Axtell NE.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Coal in the Kansas elections - is it a factor? (short answer - some places yes, others no)
September 18, 2008
Because I was working on two entries at once, I almost messed up this blog headline with the headline from the previous entry. That would have been bad. It’s probably too early to be trying to put reliable information on the internet, before the coffee has sunk in.
Reprinted in full from Harris News -
Coal plants could be key issue in some races
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — As the battle shifts to a handful of political campaigns, the debate over whether to build new coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas could start heating up yet again.
Several incumbent lawmakers on each side of the divide find themselves being pressed to defend their positions by challengers who see the plants as a key election issue.
The two westernmost House Democrats to oppose legislation authorizing the plants face opposition from Republicans who criticize their votes on the matter.
At the same time, two powerful central Kansas GOP lawmakers who backed bills allowing the plants must now fend off challenges from environmentally minded Democrats.
The debate over the issue is expected to be prominent in several eastern Kansas races, as well, meaning the Nov. 4 general election could either shore up support for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ opposition to the plants or give supporters the votes they need to override her vetoes in the future.
Yet some observers remain unconvinced that the plant issue — which consumed much of the 2008 Legislature’s time — will have all that much sway with voters this fall.
“I would be very surprised if it decides very many races,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, a plant supporter.
Bill Griffith, energy chairman for the Kansas Sierra Club, he thought the plants would likely be a factor in just a handful of mostly eastern Kansas races.
“I think it will be in voters’ mind in specific districts,” said Griffith, whose group opposed the plants.
But the issue is certainly a hot one for several challengers in central Kansas, particularly in and around Salina, where an environmental research group, The Land Institute, is based.
Emler’s strong support for legislation allowing the plants motivated for Cynthia Nelson, a retired educator who lives in Lincoln, to challenge the two-term senator in the Nov. 4 general election.
The chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee, Emler played a key role this past session in helping shape legislation this past session that would have allowed Hays-based Sunflower Electric to add two new generators to its existing Holcomb plant.
However, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed those measures and lawmakers failed to override them by margins that amounted to just a handful of votes. As result, her administration’s decision to reject air-quality permits for the plants stood.
Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby initially blocked the plants last year over concerns that their carbon dioxide emissions would contribute to global warming, a decision that remains under legal challenge.
Nelson said she was upset the Emler would support the development of more coal-power in Kansas. Coal already produces about three-quarters of the state’s power and she said she’d rather see the state more fully utilize its potential to produce wind energy.
“I felt like I needed to stand up and not just talk about it, not just be angry about it, but try to make a difference for Kansas,” Nelson said.
But Emler counters that there’s tremendous support for Sunflower’s plants in his district, not to mention the western half of the state, and says his vote was about upholding the “rule of law.”
He said he supports wind energy at every opportunity but didn’t think it was right for an unelected bureaucrat — Bremby — to make a sweeping policy decision in regards to CO2 without input from the Legislature.
“I don’t see the vote being extremely detrimental to me, ” Emler said of his support for bills allowing the plants to be built.
Raising the issue
Emler isn’t the only central Kansas lawmaker facing opposition because of his votes on the coal plants.
Abner Perney, a Salina city commissioner, said he’s challenging two-term incumbent Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, largely over his support for the project.
“Obviously, it is the main area of disagreement with our entire existing Salina area designation,” Perney said.
Perney said he’s upset that Brungardt — along with Reps. Charlie Roth and Deena Horst, both Salina Republicans — showed consistent support for legislation that he characterizes as favoring “dirty old coal.”
“By implication, they’ve not taken any action to try to support the No. 1 growing industry in the world, which is wind power and its related fields,” Perney said. “That’s where we need to be, because Kansas is really No. 1 in wind power potential.”
Brungardt, who represents the 24th District, voted in favor of most bills that would permit the plants. But he voted against a final measure that packaged the coal plant bill will several other economic development measures.
For a related story, click here.
He said that while he understands the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, there’s also an increased demand for electricity in Kansas that’s most affordability met by coal right now.
“You have to work a little bit with what you’ve got,” Brungardt said.
Brungardt also said he doesn’t think that the plants will even be the most prominent issue in his district, citing even more interest in health care affordability, education, job creation and economic development.
The westernmost lawmaker to vote against coal-plant legislation, Rep. Josh Svaty, D-Ellsworth, also said he doesn’t hear all that much about the plants when he goes door-to-door in his district.
But the rural Salina County Republican challenging him, Dave Smith, said he believes that voters in the district are clearly upset with Svaty’s stance.
“It was a pretty major one,” Smith said. “That along with the generally liberal positions that he’s taken. This one is really significant, I believe, to the voters in our district.”
Representing the district?
Smith said one of the reasons the issue is important is that energy issues are foremost on people’s minds right now. He said it doesn’t make sense to prevent Sunflower’s central and western Kansas customers access to what he considers a cheap source of power.
But Svaty, the 108th District representative, said that he doesn’t oppose Sunflower and wants the nonprofit cooperative to able to provide power to its customers. He said he opposed the lengthy legislation because it was written to benefit a single company while reducing regulatory oversight of it.
“Usually when I have time to explain it people, they’re very understanding,” Svaty said.
Joe Siewert, the Pretty Prairie Republican challenging Rep. Mark Treaster, D-Pretty Prairie, said people in his district are seeing increases in auto and heating fuel prices and worry about similar jumps for electricity.
He said in talking with voters he’s found at least 10-to-1 support in favor of Sunflower’s coal plants and disappointment with Treaster’s votes against bill allowing the plants.
“I think that was one of their major concerns — that he didn’t represent them,” Siewert said.
But Treaster said he felt caught in the middle when lawmakers and the governor couldn’t reach a deal that would allow the plants to be built and also spur further development of renewable energy in Kansas.
“I would say I was very disappointed that a compromise wasn’t reached,” Treaster said.
Better position?
Elsewhere in the state, Griffith said there are indications that the plants could emerge as an issue in eastern Kansas legislative races, particularly in Lawrence, Manhattan and Johnson County.
Lawrence residents were some of the most vocal in expressing opposition to Sunflower’s plant last year when the state conducted public hearings on whether the project should receive air-quality permits.
One district where the issue could emerge most prominently is the 3rd District Senate race between incumbent Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, and Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City.
Pine, first elected four years ago, represents an area that includes the part of Lawrence, eastern Douglas County, Jefferson County and part of Leavenworth County. Holland presently represents parts of Douglas and Franklin County.
Holland, who opposed legislation authorizing the plants in the House, could not be reached for comment. But Pine said he was concerned about the amount of opposition to the plants that had emerged from Lawrence.
But he said he also believed that the state needed to utilize all of its energy options to produce power and that supporting the coal plants represented the best decision he could make.
“Sure, I’m concerned about that. There’s no question about that,” Pine said of the Lawrence opposition. “I think I feel strongly enough that I believe it’s the right thing to do.”
When all is said and done, though, Griffith of the Sierra Club said he doubts that there’s much potential for this year’s election to substantially change how the Senate might vote on coal-plant legislation.
This past session, that chamber’s members voted overwhelmingly in favor of bills allowing the plants. However, in the House, which narrowly failed to override Sebelius’ vetoes, Griffith said he expected the governor to gain supporters in this fall’s elections.
As a result, unless some major compromise is reached in the future, Griffith said he thinks Sebelius will be more likely to win on the coal-plant issue, should it re-emerge next session.
“It’s going to be, I think, harder for the other side next year,” Griffith said. “I think the governor will be in a better position to sustain a veto.”
Some of the different faces of Kansas wind
September 16, 2008
As an industry, wind power varies widely in size. It runs from small wind at homes, schools, and businesses, to large turbines that lease farmers’ lands. Recently, a few folks have sent me pictures of how they are involved in wind here in Kansas.
The following comes from Debby Boyer, a landowner in Lincoln County (she is also pictured below, along with the turbines on their land).
Hi, I’m one of the land owners on the Smoky Hill Wind Project along with my brother, Ted. I grew up in that area but have lived in Florida for the past 24 years. I was so glad to get away from the howling wind. Of course, these days I’ve changed my tune.
Our great grandfather, Seth Thomas Hamblin, homesteaded the property in 1870. It is amazing that the hard work of my great grandfather benefits my brother and I in the new millennium. I visited the land in June and I was astonished at the beauty and simplicity of the towers. They reminded me of great white storks—like sentinels watching out over the land for miles and miles. I used to wish oil had been found there, but compared with noisy stinky oil rigs, our aesthetic towers raise my hopes for a world someday free of the need of petroleum. Necessity is the mother of invention and she dwells in Kansas.
And this was forwarded on to me via several people - an educational center in Greenbush, KS (near Pittsburgh, I think?) now has a new turbine up through NREL’s Wind for Schools program, which is facilitated by the Kansas Wind Applications Center at K-State. A local dealer donated a big chunk of the install and the local rural co-op poured the footing.
From the email that came along with the following photo:
I wanted to email you with some terrific news… our turbine is installed and fully functional! We finished the work on Wednesday and I finally got out to take a decent picture or 2 to send on to you. In both the pictures the turbine may look a bit blurry because it hasn’t stopped spinning yet. It seems even a very modest wind is still causing significant rotation with it up at 60ft. As you can tell it is a fantastic addition to our facility and we’ve already had tons of students out to see it as well as a swarm of media coverage. Local newspapers and TV crews were out on the install date and did some interviews…. We are creating curriculum that will allow students to use the data coming from the interface box and use a 3-D virtual world some of our technology minds have created to go build a virtual wind turbine and make it work! As I said… very exciting!
One of the things Eileen and I were thinking about State Fair for next year - we definitely, definitely, need a bigger wind map of Kansas, and it would be EXTREMELY cool to have thumbtacks showing not only the big wind farms, but all the turbines going up at schools, too. (Yes, and the turbine at the fire station in Manhattan!)
It would also be amazing if by next year we could also get a few thumbtacks for community wind around the state, or for smaller distributed wind projects encouraged by rural electric co-ops, should any of those arise.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Gov. Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Parkinson urge KS delegation to support Production Tax Credit
September 15, 2008
Reprinted in full from the Governor’s news release:
Governor, Lt. Governor ask Congressional leadership and the Kansas delegation
to support Kansas wind energy
Securing policies that encourage clean energy investments will protect and strengthen our economy, as well as reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel. However, states cannot take advantage of existing resources without consistent federal and state policies to incentivize expansion.
At the state level, the Sebelius Administration has led the way to harness Kansas’ full wind energy potential through the establishment of a voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). As a result there has been a near tripling of wind farms in Kansas. We started 2008 with 364 MW generated from wind farms and will end the year with 1015 MW. Kansas will be only the seventh state to reach 1,000 MW of wind power.
Unfortunately, this past year, our friends in Congress failed to pass the production tax credit (PTC) that would incentivize wind energy investments into the future.
Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson strongly believe that to continue the progress in Kansas, the federal delegation must join state efforts to ensure cost-effective policies are implemented. They sent a letter this week to Congressional leadership and the Kansas delegation urging them to support the extension of the federal production tax credit for wind energy.
Less than four months from today the PTC is set to expire which, in turn, will result in a significant lapse in industry investments. The pending PTC extension has not only created overwhelming uncertainty for manufacturers and developers, it has also increased the level of industry risk making it more difficult for lenders to fund new projects.
“Kansas is in a position to greatly benefit from our wind resources. Extending the PTC will increase stability in the market which will allow more wind projects to go online in a timely manner,” Robert Freeman, CEO, TradeWind Energy.
Renewable tax credits have made it more economically feasible for projects to be funded. In 1999, 2001 and 2003, Congress failed to renew the PTC resulting in a significant drop in new wind installations for the subsequent years. Congress has extended the PTC since 2004 to allow for developers to plan for long-term.
Last year, the United States realized more economic growth in the wind industry than ever before. But unless the PTC is renewed, the stable growth of the wind industry will be threatened, and efforts impeded.
“If the wind industry is disadvantaged in the market place, economic development, job creation, and environmental and energy security benefits stimulated by wind energy development could decline in states across the country, including Kansas,” said Antonio Martins da Costa, CEO of Horizon Wind Energy.
A multi-year extension of the PTC will allow states to continue building momentum and get us closer to achieving energy independence.
The text of the letter follows:
September 12, 2008
Dear << Congressional leadership, member of the Kansas Congressional Delegation >>,
Renewable energy plays an important role in our nation’s energy security. By diversifying our domestic energy supply we can fight the inconsistency of fuel prices and prepare for a safer, more efficient future for our country. We strongly encourage our Republican and Democratic friends in the Senate to join forces with a bi-partisan majority of governors nationwide and to work to reach a Senate compromise to the current energy and tax extension impasse that has cast a cloud over support for federal tax incentives necessary to stimulate expansion of renewable technologies.
At the state level our Administration has been leading the way to harness Kansas’ full wind energy potential through the establishment of a voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). By partnering with Kansas utilities, we were able to negotiate a voluntary goal that has since put Kansas on the map for wind production. As a result there has been a near tripling of wind farms in Kansas. By the end of 2008 Kansas will be only the seventh state to reach 1,000 MW of wind power. However, immediate action by Congress to extend tax incentives for renewable energy is needed to ensure continued success and progress.
Extending the production tax credit (PTC) will allow states to incentivize investments in clean and affordable energy, as well as help to create new jobs. Securing a clean energy future must be a priority, and a multi-year PTC extension is a step in the right direction. Extending the PTC for at least three years will allow manufacturers and developers time to plan which will benefit our statewide growth in wind. In years past, very little investments were made in renewables without the PTC. We have the opportunity to guarantee results; now we must unite in our efforts so we can capitalize on our existing assets.
By coming together at the federal and state level to advance economically and environmentally sound policies, we will balance our energy portfolio as well as permit reliable alternatives to bridge the gap for more efficient technologies in the future. That, in turn, will help us to avoid outages and keep electricity rates down. Better policies will help to make us a leader in this national quest for diversification.
Please join us in promoting the policies that are necessary to spur the growth of a cleaner future for generations to come.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor
Mark Parkinson, Lt. Governor
# # #
Governor Sebelius visits Wind Energy Booth at KS State Fair
September 11, 2008
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius stopped by the Climate and Energy Project’s Wind Energy Booth yesterday at the State Fair.
She checked out the live feed of KCP&L’s Spearville project, met with wind industry representatives, and posed for a ton of photos. And of course, we gave her a “Good for Kansas” t-shirt… But she knew that already.
Governor Sebelius has been an excellent proponent of wind energy in our state. Recently, she stated, “Our state has the potential to generate between 7,000 to 10,000 megawatts of wind power. We’re heading in the right direction and I look forward to Kansas being a leader in creating clean, renewable energy.”
Right on, Governor Sebelius. Those of us in the Wind Energy booth couldn’t agree more.
For more photos, check out CEP’s flickr page.
— Live from Hutchinson, CEP Correspondent Eileen Horn
www.climateandenergy.org
(FYI, that is Eileen talking to Governor Sebelius in the photo above.)
Wind farms being planned for Thomas and Hamilton County
September 10, 2008
Reprinted in full from Hays Daily News
By MIKE CORN
COLBY — Construction on a new 72-tower wind farm in Thomas County could begin before the end of the year.
A second wind farm is being planned for Hamilton County by Acconia Energy North America, a subsidiary of Acconia, based in Madrid, Spain.
Both projects still are on the drawing board, so details likely will change before construction actually begins, according to Eric Schneider, director of marketing and communications for Acconia. Schneider said he is a Topeka native now living in Chicago.
The proposed wind farms represent some of the green economic benefits discussed this morning by the Center for American Progress and heralded by the Kansas Sierra Club.
In its report, the center suggests Kansas would gain a small slice of the $1 billion in benefits that would derive from a green economy. Most of the $881 million benefit to Kansas, the group said, would go to existing groups for retrofitting buildings, mass transit and alternative sources of energy.
The group is suggesting an increase of slightly more than 20,000 jobs in Kansas would come from green jobs.
Some of those jobs would be created for projects such as the Solomon Creek wind project in the Colby area. That project would include 72 1.5-megawatt towers. The turbines would produce 108 megawatts of power.
The nacelles — the upper-most unit that houses all the generating components — will come from Acconia’s own manufacturing plant in West Branch, Iowa. The towers and blades will be purchased on the open market.
The Hamilton County wind farm, called the Bear Creek project, will be slightly larger, Schneider said, with 90 towers capable of producing 135 megawatts.
The total number of towers at either location could change by the time construction begins, he said.
Schneider said Acconia is looking at the two projects because of the wind resources available in the western part of the state.
“We do have assessments all over the state and the Midwest,” he said.
Specifically, the wind assessments for the area where the land is available is drawing the company to Thomas County.
“We also have to have access to transmission lines,” Schneider said.
In the Thomas County case, Acconia would tap into transmission lines owned by Sunflower Electric.
Although specifics of the project likely will change, Schneider said it is a project that is far along in the planning process.
Wind assessments already have been done.
“We’re getting pretty far down the path,” he said. “We haven’t broken ground, but we know wind capacity is good.”
That leaves working with landowners and owners of transmission lines.
“We’re hoping to break ground this year,” he said.
The Thomas and Hamilton county projects would be the first in the Kansas for Acconia, but not the first in the United States. It has four wind projects in Canada and two in the United States.
Acconia is an international company, with much of its work focusing on renewable energy projects, such as wind, solar and hydrogen projects. The company has desalinization projects in Florida and California.
Perhaps its most visible project is the Nevada Solar One, a bank of curved mirrors that produces steam to turn a turbine producing 64 megawatts of electricity.
State Fair: More pictures
September 8, 2008
Our CEP colleague Eileen, booth organizer extraordinaire, is rushed off her feet at the Kansas State Fair. Thus we have cherry-picked some of her photos recently posted to the CEP flickr account.
Kansas turbine manufacturer Sunflower Wind donated model turbines for kids to build. (Cool!) And wouldn’t the State Fair be easier for grown-ups, too, if we had someone to pull us around in a little green wagon.
Here’s the booth staff, with Senator Brownback, who reportedly spent thirty whole minutes there. If you are familiar with the time commitments of politicians’ schedules, that’s pretty much the equivalent of … well, I just got too nervous, not wanting to say anything that might come back to haunt me, and I couldn’t make any analogy that worked (dog years? glacial epochs? Nothing seemed right).
Basically, it’s a long time.
Left to right (and I don’t know everyone! E, chip in when you get online): The nice guy who runs Spearville Wind Farm, Eileen Horn, an awesome volunteer whom I haven’t met yet, Dan Nagengast, Senator Sam Brownback, and Ben Morgan
Here’s Kansans figuring out their wind resources, according to the new wind map:
Wind energy - interesting for the whole family. Well, almost the whole family. The littlest guy has had a long day.
And here’s pretty much the coolest t-shirt ever - do I get on the Skystream website to order it, E? Because I simply gotta have it.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Transmission: KETA won’t get involved in KS transmission debate
September 8, 2008
Reprinted in full from Hays Daily News.
Lawmakers remaining neutral in transmission fight
By CHRIS GREEN
Harris News Service
TOPEKA — Key legislators say they won’t be picking sides when it comes to an unusual competition between two utilities wanting to build electric transmission lines through southwest Kansas.
This past week, the president of one of those companies asked the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority, which tries to spur upgrades to the state’s power grid, to get behind a compromise offer designed to end the battle over the lines.
But lawmakers serving on that board said they didn’t think it would be appropriate for them to indicate support for a particular proposal.
“We don’t make that decision,” said state Sen. Janis Lee, D-Kensington, a member of the seven-member transmission authority. “It’s not our place to be involved.”
Two firms, ITC Great Plains and Westar Energy, are vying to construct a V-shaped series of high-voltage lines, part of an overall plan that would significantly upgrade the region’s transmission capacity.
It’s first time, state utility regulators note, they’ve seen two entities compete for the right to build the same transmission line.
A case that could decide which company will be allowed to build the transmission lines is unfolding before the Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s largest utilities. Staff members for the agency are presently collecting information and will issue a report on the case next month.
Electric power providers in central and western Kansas announced an agreement Tuesday evening that would allow ITC Great Plains, the subsidiary of a Michigan company, to build the two segments of the V-plan entirely inside their service territories.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Mid-Kansas Electric Co., both based in Hays and run by the same six rural electric cooperatives, also offered Westar the chance to build the plan’s third segment.
ITC Great Plains, which only builds power lines and doesn’t generate its own electricity, would own and operate lines running from Spearville to Comanche County and then on into Barber County. The cooperatives would maintain the lines.
Under the deal, Westar, investor-owned and the state’s largest electric utility, would be given the final leg, which would cross several miles into Westar’s territory as it runs from Medicine Lodge to just outside Wichita.
ITC Great Plains President Carl Huslig told members of the authority that he believed the proposal was a great settlement and urged them to get behind it.
“If you believe so, I would hope that you would be out vocally supporting such a statement so we can get this done,” Huslig said.
A Westar official, however, expressed no interest in the compromise during an interview earlier this week.
Jim Ludwig, a Westar vice president, said his company still wanted to build the entire line. He said the company’s joint venture with other firms, Prairie Wind Transmission, was the best candidate to construct the project.
He also said it would be up to state utility regulators to determine who would build the lines.
However, Huslig said authority members should support the compromise because it might speed the construction of a crucial project. The plan could bring a 765-kilovolt line to Kansas and would be the most electrified line west of the Mississippi River. The line could bring cheaper power to rural areas in western Kansas — which tend to pay higher electric rates than urban areas in eastern Kansas — and allow further development of wind energy production in the region, he said.
“Renewables are going to be capped without this transmission line,” Huslig said.
No end in sight
ITC Great Plains was the first of the two companies to propose the line. But Westar sought dismissal of their rival’s plan in May and proposed to build their own similar project.
Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, was quoted in a press release announcing the settlement proposal involving Sunflower Electric, Mid-Kansas Electric and ITC Great Plains.
But he said later that he doesn’t actually favor one company’s bid over the other.
Sloan noted that under the rules of the Southwest Power Pool, the regional transmission planning board for the middle section of the nation’s grid, the Sunflower cooperatives have the right to choose whether they builds lines proposed for their service territories.
The agreement, he said, shows that Sunflower’s cooperatives have made the decision that they want ITC Great Plains to build the lines wholly inside their territories. They’ve also extended an offer to Westar for lines spanning the two provider’s service zones.
“I’m just concerned that we get the transmission built sooner, rather than later,” Sloan said.
But Westar officials are contending before the KCC that they have a legal right to refuse ITC Great Plains’ entire transmission proposal, even the parts not extending into its areas. Westar wants to the lines so it can expand its system’s use of wind power from central and western Kansas.
The authority’s chairman, Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, said his panel would keep a close eye on developments in the competition involving Westar and ITC Great Plains.
But he said he didn’t think it would help for the authority to add to the number of entities directly involved in deciding which company builds the transmission lines.
“I think KETA has a role to monitor and stay on top of the what the KCC is doing,” as well as keep track of the Southwest Power Pool, Holmes said.
Another transmission authority member, Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, said he also thought remaining neutral was the best option for the authority.
He said he’s not concerned that the ongoing case over the power lines would ultimately result in delays that force the project to be scrapped.
“I think it’s going to get built,” Emler said of the project. “The issue is: ‘Who’s going to build it?’”
Huslig said he was just making a suggestion to the authority when asked them to get behind the settlement involving ITC Great Plains. He said it was up to members of the board to decide how to respond to it.
He said the deal involving his firm would’ve sped resolution of the power-line dispute, which will now continue without any clear end in sight.
“I would not be surprised if it dragged out into early next year,” Huslig said.
Transmission - the legal question currently at issue in the Kansas transmission discussion
September 5, 2008
Those of you trying to keep track of the players in the Kansas transmission picture probably are wishing we could set up some version of fantasy football, with data tracking systems to keep tabs on all the players, issues, regulators, the game schedule, etc.
That is beyond my power (ha). But since this has been de facto transmission week on the CEP blog, I’d like to add to the mix this contribution from SNL writer Kerry Bleskan. SNL is a subscription news service (you can sign up for a free trial, it’s good stuff for industry types), but they have kindly allowed us to clip from one of her articles.
Kerry’s summary is a lot better than the fantasy football approach (if you’d like to read a .pdf of the full article, you can download it here). As she notes:
In a Sept. 2 order relevant to applications from both Westar Energy Inc. and ITC Great Plains applications to build a 180-mile section of transmission line called the V-Plan, the KCC gave its staff 30 days to write a report that summarizes the issues involved and propose a process and procedural schedule for resolution.
Here’s the chronology, as well as the major players:
ITC, an ITC Holdings Corp. subsidiary, applied to build the project April 11, and on Sept. 2 announced a collaboration with Mid-Kansas Electric Co. LLC and its generation and transmission arm, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., to build the parts of the line outside Westar’s service territory.
Westar is also proposing a collaborative effort, a new joint venture called Prairie Wind Transmission LLC. Westar’s partner is Electric Transmission America, which is in turn a joint venture between American Electric Power Co. Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. The new venture filed its application with the KCC May 19.
Wait, it gets even more complicated. What happens with this transmission case will likely affect other transmission cases in the future. This means other utilities with potential transmission issues also have an interest in the outcome. Therefore, they have the status necessary to intervene in the case.
The KCC’s order allows the two companies to intervene in each other’s cases. Others granted intervenor status include the Southwest Power Pool Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. subsidiary Kansas City Power & Light, Sunflower and Mid-Kansas.
Mid-Kansas and Sunflower stressed in their intervenor filing that they had discussed the V-Plan with ITC but were not relinquishing their right of first refusal.
The Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board was approved as an intervenor in Westar’s application but not yet in ITC’s, pending a statutory comment period. CURB applied for the consideration Aug. 28.
SPP and CURB have their own interests as well. SPP is trying to carry out a giant planning process to smooth out and upgrade the grid in their territory - primarily KS, OK, and part of TX, also one of the most wind-rich areas in the country. Do they want one state to mess up their plans? Probably not, is my guess.
So what are these parties going to debate? The right of first refusal. According to Kerry:
A major issue in the proceeding concerns an incumbent utility’s right of first refusal: Once a project is deemed necessary, local transmission-owning utilities get the first crack at it. If the locals decide not to build the project, outside companies such as ITC then have their chance.
The concept was written into the KCC’s decision allowing ITC to operate as a utility in the state.
ITC’s Sept. 2 cooperation announcement touched on the concept, stating that Westar had been invited to build the Medicine Lodge-Sedgwick County segment of the transmission line, as that segment runs through the utility’s service territory.
Westar filed for consolidation of the three dockets, saying they are essentially one project, and to dismiss the ITC’s application based on Westar’s right of first refusal. The two companies then filed two rounds of heated responses and replies.
The KCC tabled the issue Sept. 2, saying simply that it “declines to rule on these two issues at this time and takes them under advisement.”
I would have to add - a week or two ago I sat in on a DOE conference call about their major new wind study, showing that the U.S. could potentially get 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030.
One of the major barriers to accomplishing this goal was cited as the “balkanization” of the U.S. electrical grid. This argument is that there are simply too many competing territories and regulators to get the grid in shape in a timely manner.
Right now, the case study of Kansas does not exactly r